Frank Lloyd Wright was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frank Lloyd Wright article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 100 days

This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Industrial design High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Industrial designWikipedia:WikiProject Industrial designTemplate:WikiProject Industrial designIndustrial design articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Smithsonian Institution: Archives of American Art Low‑importance This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Archives of American Art. Wisconsin High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Glass Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Craft Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Craft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of craft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CraftWikipedia:WikiProject CraftTemplate:WikiProject CraftCraft articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. National Register of Historic Places High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Was Frank Lloyd Wright influenced by Charles Rennie Mackintosh when Wright visited Europe? The similarities are striking. See some comparisons here ---> http://www.screencast.com/users/Tommm3/folders/Default/media/f7481fc8-696d-4e1b-adb5-db8d367a3c70

For middle name see discussion in archive 1: /info/en/?search=Talk:Frank_Lloyd_Wright/Archive_1

According to FLW himself, which I have good reasons to believe is correct, he was born in 1869.

Numerous sources including census records confirm that he was born in 1867, What sources do you have? And please sign your posts with four tildes. Dktrfz ( talk) 16:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Brendan Gill's nonsense about 'Franklin Lincoln Wright' has cropped up again. Two of the references shown quote Gill. Gill's assertion has no reference, and census records only show 'Frank Lloyd Wright' There is no reference from any source about this story that was published before Gill's book. For middle name see discussion in archive 1: /info/en/?search=Talk:Frank_Lloyd_Wright/Archive_1 65.128.55.7 ( talk) 21:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I didn't realise that this has been such a contentious issue when I made my edit. As far as I can find, there have been no scholarly refutations of Gill's claim; is that correct? And although the claim may or may not have originated with Gill, neither of the two sources I added directly reference Gill, as Cronon references Meryle Secrest's biography, and Huxtable says that the name change is indicated in "family records". This particularly seems significant, and was what provoked my edit. I've now read through the archived discussion, and the absences that it mentions seem hardly conclusive; either way, the consensus among reliable secondary sources that I've seen is that this name change did occur. I'll tag you Dktrfz as you seem to be somewhat involved with the discussion, and try to ping the IP editor too. Thanks, Swadge2 ( talk) 22:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Ask yourself this: was it Frank Lincoln Wright or was it Franklin Lincoln Wright? Gill offers both on the page referenced. If he had access to "family records" he would know which one it was, and would have put it in his references. He cannot have it both ways! Furthermore, there is no reference to either name before Gill's biography was published in 1987. If there was even one, there would be no controversy. Gill was a successful feature story writer for The New Yorker magazine but not a very good biographer—there are numerous errors in Many Masks and, according to Taliesin insiders, Gill's claim to be a personal friend of Wright and Wright's family is sketchy at best. 65.128.55.7 ( talk) 14:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This all seems to me to be original research. Are there any reliable secondary sources that dispute this claim of Gill's? All I can find is authors that accept that Wright was born with the middle name "Lincoln". The article should reflect the consensus among secondary scholarly sources, and in my opinion, it currently does not. Swadge2 ( talk) 12:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Again, ask yourself this: was it Frank Lincoln Wright or was it Franklin Lincoln Wright? Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. 65.128.61.6 ( talk) 15:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I have carefully read pages 25-26 in Gill's Many Masks, and nowhere does Gill say that family records indicate the name "Franklin". He simply speculates that the infant may have been christened Franklin after the president, and makes clear that he has no evidence for this suggestion. It's just the middle name claim for which he cites "at least two Wright family documents". I therefore think that this Frank/Franklin issue really does not undermine Gill in the way that you make out. In any case, this debate is beside the point; per WP:RS, what matters is reliable secondary sources, and the consensus among them is that Wright had the middle name "Lincoln" before Lloyd. I don't understand what your mention of vague attribution is intended to address, would you mind being more specific? Swadge2 ( talk) 02:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

As the article stands it states there is a controversy about his birth name. You can delete it if you like, but to ignore the controversy is your opinion. The fact remains that there is no documented evidence of Lincoln as a middle name and there was no reference to it all before Gill's bio. There is a US Census document from 1880, however, listing his name as Frank Loyd(sic) Wright. All of the reliable secondary resources based their information on Gill's conjectures.

Once again: As the article stands it states there is a controversy about his birth name.

Why do you think that fact should be ignored? 65.128.61.6 ( talk) 16:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC) reply

It's not so much that I think that this controversy should be ignored, but rather that I don't think that it exists beyond this talk page. However, I am a relatively inexperienced editor, and while we seem to have covered some ground with this discussion, I think a third opinion might be helpful. I'm therefore going to list this matter at WP:3. Thanks, Swadge2 ( talk) 07:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10746&hilit=lincoln 174.20.74.204 ( talk) 14:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for that link, really interesting stuff. Of course that forum can't be cited, but I think I've now got a better understanding of your position, having browsed through the discussion there. Seeing all the research they've done into this hasn't quite persuaded me that Gill made this all up, but my previous surety that this Lincoln/Lloyd change occurred is no more. I still think the article should say that later authors have followed Gill's position, but I think just as much that it's very fair to point out that no supporting evidence has been found. From that thread I also found Paul Hendrickson's Plagued by Fire in which he describes the Lincoln/Lloyd issue with a rather sceptical "supposed", seems worth mentioning.

From my perspective, this issue is more or less resolved. The edits I would now propose are a readdition of the sources I initially added just for completeness' sake, while keeping something to say that no evidence has been produced to support the name change. How does that sound to you? Best regards, Swadge2 ( talk) 13:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

I think text indicating that a biographer made this allegation should be included, but it should be described as a claim made by the biographer. ParticipantObserver ( talk) 13:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks, everyone.

This dilemma is somewhat unique in that there has been so much written about Wright over the last 120+ years (including a ton of misinformation from Wright himself) that it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. Further complicating things is that Brendan Gill was an accomplished feature writer at The New Yorker (where he had fact-checkers carefully vetting his articles) but not a scholarly biographer. Many Masks (the title's premise reflects Gill's bias perfectly) had an enormous impact on Wright's legacy which has shaped it ever since. That said, even a cursory look at Gill's career shows that he relished dishing dirt on his subjects. Obviously, it is beyond the scope of any Wikipedia article to completely validate every source but care should be taken and legitimate questions about the integrity of questionable information should be at least acknowledged. The Hendrickson book, which only covers a few notable instances of Wright’s life, is a good example of a proper biography, with diligent research supported by detailed references. 174.20.74.204 ( talk) 16:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

There is an AfD for Nakoma Golf Resort which may be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakoma Golf Resort. Nigej ( talk) 10:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply

In the Cause of Architecture, FLW advocated for an Office of County Architect in his venture into Landscape Architecture via the Broadacres City concept of a City & Regional Planning scheme compatible to American Democracy.

The function of a County Architect is uniquely concerned with enforcement of State & Federal Planning Codes effecting Urban growth in cooperation with the County Engineer. County Commissioners have traditionally assumed the Role of County Architect by default for lack of a viable concept. This problem was noted by Thomas Jefferson and has existed since time immemorial resulting in cities of confusion & Urban sprawl.

The talk page in the article on Broadacres City explains this concept from the point of view of a former Apprentice to Wright attending the Taliesin Fellowship in 1958-59. DAB

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
2601:4C0:3:91EA:D5DD:76C7:93EE:CC46 (
talk) 18:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
reply 

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Lloyd Wright/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz ( talk · contribs) 12:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• There's such a large number of {{ citation needed}} tags (44 in total) either already present or that I have thought needed adding, so I will move to fail the GA nomination per criteria 3 of WP:GAFAIL. However! As I was previously an architect student and have a fascination for Wright I know most of the claims tagged to either be true or likely to be true. Nonetheless, they need sourcing. I will continue giving feedback below before marking the nomination as fail as I don't see a reason not to. The article is quite a good view of Wright both on his career and personal life, so once the tagging issues are fixed you're basically two steps from the finish line.

Lead

• Grammar, spelling and prose all appropriate. Good balance of professional and personal summary.
• I'd maybe put the last sentence of the first paragraph as the second sentence, as it seems a bit more natural to talk first about how massively influential he was and then about his philosophy. This would also flow more smoothly to talking about the Prairie school.

Early years

• I'd suggest merging the two paragraphs on the father and mother.
• The first sentence in the Education subsection is quite long and has many subclauses. I'd recommend dividing it into three, with the first two being In 1886, at age 19 he wanted to become an architect. He was admitted to the University of Wisconsin–Madison as a special student. The reason why I think the special student clause should be on its own is I don't really understand what that means and thus it probably needs explanation (i.e. is it a special-needs admission, a scholarship admission, a legacy admission, etc.).

Adler

• For that matter, Sullivan showed very little respect for his own employees as well. I'd use Additionally, as it is simpler English but I'll leave that choice to you.

Legacy

• Although Olgivanna had taken no legal steps to move Wright's remains and against the wishes of other family members, as well as the Wisconsin legislature, in 1985, Wright's remains were removed from his grave by members of the Taliesin Fellowship, cremated, and sent to Scottsdale, where they were later interred in the memorial garden. This sentence has too many commas. I'd recommend dividing it into two sentences and simplifying the phrasing.

While their marriage is recorded in the infobox, the only mention of events regarding Tobin are to say she did not grant Wright a divorce at first but later did. When/where they were married, the surrounding circumstances, etc. are not mentioned. Also, the article calls Catherine Tobin "Kitty" before making a connection between the two names. Quirk4 ( talk) 03:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't know I just got into architecture and I love that house and I saw it missing when researching wright ChristopherLong22 ( talk) 04:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC) reply

it is in the buildings section near the bottom of the page Dktrfz ( talk) 01:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply